E 449 
.G43 




Glass L 4 ^ 9 



f\ 



Rook .\J[4^ 



PAYMENT FOE SLAVES. 



SPEECH OF MR. J. R. &IDDIMS, OF OHIO, 



ON THE 



BILL TO PAY THE HEIRS OF ANTONIO PACIIECO FOR A SLAVE SENT WEST OP THE MISSIS- 
SIPPI WITH THE SE3IIN0LE INDIANS IN ISIS. 



Made in the House of Representatives, Dec. 28, 1848, and Jan. 6., 1849. 



I 



WASHINGTON : 

PRINTED BY BUELL & BLANCHARD. 

1849. 



IN EXCHANqE 






f 




\^. 



I/..., 



SPEECH. 



Mr. GiDDixGS said, lie had not intended to par- 
ticipate in this debate; but, from the favor with 
which the bill had been regarded in Committee, 
and the majority in favor of its engrossment, he 
apprehended that gentlemen had not carefully 
examined the facts of the case, nor did he think 
they had fully considered the principles involved 
in the passage of the bill. There are (said he) 
certain great and fundamental truths which lie at 
the foundation of our Government. We profess 
to " Jiold these truths to be self-evident, that all men 
are created equal;'''' yet the bill before us admits 
one man to be the property of another; that one 
man may rightfully hold another subject to his 
will, may scourge him into obedience, and compel 
him to labor for the benefit of his master. We 
profess to believe that all men " are endowed by 
their Creator nith the unalimiaUe right to the enjoy- 
ment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;^' 
yet the bill before us admits the claimant to have 
rightfully held the liberty and happiness of his 
fellow-man at his entire disposal. Now, if we 
pass this bill, our professions will be in direct 
contradiction to our practice. If we really hold 
to these doctrines, it is certain that we must op- 
pose this bill ; and it is equally certain that if we 
pass this bill, we shall, by such act. deny these 
truths. We each of us der\y these doctrines, or 
we hold to them. We cannot do both. To say 
that we hold to them, and at the same time sup- 
port this bill, would be placing our professions in 
direct contradiction to our actions. The incon- 
sistency would be too obvious to deceive any one. 
Tell me not that you hold to the undying truths 
contained in our Declaration of Independence, 
and at the same time sit here to estimate the 1 
value, in dollars and cents, of the body and mind 
of your fellow-man. Those who founded our Gov- 
ernment declared their ulterior object. That ob- 
ject was to '■'secure all men (residing within our ju- 
risdiction) 'in the enjoyment of life., liberty, andthepur- 
su'a of happiness? Are we to-day (said he) carry- 
ing out these objects ? Here, sir, are two hun- 
dred and thirty American statesmen legislating 
for the benefit of slavery. There is no evading 
this plain and obvious fact. No subterfuge can 



hide it from the People. The powers of Govern- 
ment were instituted by our patriotic fathers for 
the express purpose of securing to all for whom 
we legislate the blessings of liberty. We are 
now sitting here to compensate the oppressor of 
his fellow-man for his inability to continue his 
power over the victim of his barbarous cupidity. 
The members who vote for this bill will give un- 
mistakable evidence of their approbation of sla- 
very, and their willingness to sustain it. 

Before I proceed further, I will give a synopsis 
of the facts involved in the case. The claimant, 
inlS35, residing in Florida, professed to own a 
negro man named Lewis. This man is said to 
have been very intelligent, speaking four lan- 
guages, which he read and wrote with facility. 
The master hired him to an officer of the United 
States, to act as a guide to the troops under the 
command of Major Dade, for which he was to re- 
ceive twenty-five dollars per montlh. The duties 
were dangerous, and the price was proportioned 
to the danger. At the time these troops were mas- 
sacred, this slave Lewis deserted to the enemy, or 
was captured by them. He remained with the 
Indians, acting with them in their depredations 
against the white people, until 1S37, when, Gen- 
eral Jesup says, he nas captured by a detachment of 
troops under his command. An Indian chief, named 
Jumper, surrendered with Lewis, whom he claim- 
ed as a slave, having, as he said, captured him at 
the time of Dade's defeat. General Jesup declares 
that he regarded him as a dangerous man ; that he 
was supposed to have kept up a correspoMence n-ith 
the enemy from the time he joined Major Dade until 
the defeat of that officer ; that., to insure the public 
safety., he ordered him sent West with the Indians; be- 
lieving that if left in the country he v:ould be employed 
against our troops. He was sent West ; and the 
claimant now asks that we should pay him a thou- 
sand dollars as the value of this man's body. 

The Committee on Military Affairs were una- 
ble to unite in a report upon the case. Five 
slaveholders, representing slave property on this 
floor, and constituting a majority of the commit- 
tee, have reported a bill for the payment of this 
amount to the claimant. Four Northern mem- 



bers representing frefinen only, have made a mi- 
nority report against the bill. This report, as I 
think, is sustained by irrefutable arguments. 

The majority of the committee assume the po- 
sition that slaves are regarded by the Federal 
Constitution as property, and that this Govern- 
ment and the people of the fr^-e States are bound 
to regard them as such, and to pay for them as j 
we would for so many mules or oxen taken into 
the public service. The minority deny this doc- 
trine. They insist that the Federal Constitution ! 
treats them as persons only, and that this Govern- j 
ment cannot constitutionally involve the people of j 
the free States in the guilt of sustaining slavery ; i 
that we have no constitutional powers to legislate 1 
upon the relation of master and slave. There are j 
several other points on which the committee dif- j 
fer, some of which I intend to notice ; but I pro- 
pose first to examine for a few moments that of , 
the constitutional power. It is due to myself and ! 
to the country that I should call public attention 
distinctly to the fact, that these ciuestions are 
forced upon us by Southern gentlemen, against 
the wishes and remonstrance of every m.ember of 
the committee from the free States. Involving as 
it does the great fundamental principles of our 
Government, a distinguished member from the 
North [Mr. Rockwell, of Connecticut] introduced 
a resolution to close the debate in 07ie hour from 
the time we went into Committee. I thought it 
unbecoming Northern members to attempt thus 
to stifle debate on so important a matter, forced 
upon us by the South. I therefore called for the 
ayes and noes on that resolution, and now hold 
the floor by a sort of legislative fraud, having vot- 
ed /or i\i^ engrossment of the bill with the sole 
object of obtaining the floor. 

Sir, at the formation of the Constitution, sla- 
very was condemned in the severest language by 
the delegates who framed that instrument. It is 
true they had been regarded in England as prop- 
erty. In 1749, Lord Hardwicke had decided that 
trover lay for a slave in'the British courts. That 
was the hist decision of the kind made in Eng- 
land or in civilized Europe. One hundred years 
have elapsed since that decision. Its doctrines 
have been a thousand times discarded, contemned, 
and overthrown, by the statesrden and jurists of 
that nation ; but here, in an American Congress, 
we now hear this barbarous doctrine revived. 

In 1772, Lord Mansfield boldly assailed the doc- 
trine laid down in this Hall to-day, and exhibited 
its absurdity in one of the ablest opinions to be 
found on record. From that period this doctrine 
of property in man has found no supporters un- 
der the Government of England. With all our 
refinement aa a nation, with all our boasted ad- 



herence to liberty, on this subject we are three- 
quarters of a century behind our mother country. 

When Sir Warren Hastings was on trial in the 
House of Peers in 17S7, Mr. Sheridan, speaking 
on this subject, in his own peculiar and fervid el- 
oquence, declared that - allegiance to that Power 
which gives us the/o/7«5 of men, commands us to 
maintain the riglits of men; and never yet was 
this truth dismissed from the human heart— never 
in any time, in any age— never in any clime where 
rude man ever had any social feelings— never 
was this unextinguishable truth destroyed from 
the heart of man, placed as it is in the core and 
centre of it by his Maker, tlwi man uas not made 
the property of mnnP This was the language of 
British statesmen sixty-two years since. To-day 
we have before this branch of the American Con- 
gress the report of a committee avowing that, un- 
der this Federal Government, in the middle of the 
nineteenth century, '•?«</« is the propertij of his 
ftUow-mortair 

These sentiments of the British statesmen and 
jurists inspired the hearts of our American patri- 
ots in 1776, when they declared it to be a " self- 

KVIDENT TRUTH TH.\T ALL MEIS ARE CREATED EQUAL.' 

When they framed our Constitution, they de- 
clared their object was '■'■to establish justice^ and to 
secure to themselves and their posterity the blessings 
of UbertyP This subject of holding property in 
men did not escape their attention, nor have they 
left us ignorant of their views in regard to it. 
Mr. Madison, the father of the Constitution, has 
left to us a clear and explicit account of their in- 
tentions. He informs us. that on 

" Wednesday, August 22, the Convention pro- 
ceeded to consider the report of the Committee of 
Detail, in relation to duties on exports, a capita- 
tion tax, and a navigation act. The fourth section 
reported was as follows : 

" ' No tax or duty shall be laid by the Legisla- 
ture on articles exported from any State, nor on 
the migration nor importation of such personsas 
the several States shall think proper to admit : 
nor shall such migration nor importation be pro- 
hibited.' • 

" Mr. Gerry thought we had nothing to do with 
the conduct of the States as to slavery, but wt 
onght to be carf'vl not to give any sanction.'^ 

Our people think, with Mr. Gerry, that " ive 
have nothins; to do mith slavery in the States.'^ We 
are determined that we will not be involved in its 
guilt. With Mr. Gerry, we intend " to be careful 
to give it no sanction.'^ No, sir ; we will not sanc- 
tion your slavery by paying our money for the 
bodies of slaves. This is the doctrine which we 
hold, and whicli we expect to maintain; yet the 
members of this body are now engaged in legislat- 
j ing upon the price of human flesh. If we pass 
j this bill, we shall give our most solemn sanction 
to that iustitutoin which Gerry and bis compa- 



5 



■triots detested. Will the members from Penn- 
sylvania, the s-accessors of Franklin and Wilson, 
lend their sanction to slaverj', by voting the mo- 
neys of the People to pay for slaves ? 

But Air. Madison tells us that " Mr. Sherman 
(of Connecticut) was opposed to any tax on slaves, 
as making the matter worse, because it implied they 
were property P 

I understand that sovie gentlemen from- the 
North admit that slaves are property. Mr. Sher- 
man and the framers of the Constitution would 
do no act by which it could be implkd that they 
were property. 

Mr. Madison also participated in the discussion 
himself; and, as he informs us, " declared that 

HE THOUaHT IT WRONG TO ADMIT THAT THERE 

COULD BE pRorERTY IN MEN." And the report 
of the committee was so amended as to exclude 
that idea. 

In that assemblage of illustrious statesmen, no 
man expressed his dissent from these doctrines of 
Gerry, of Sherman, and of Madison. These 
doctrines are: 1. That we '■'■ should have nothing 
to do with slavery, but ought to be careful not lo give 
it any sanctionP 2. That " me should do no act by 
7V hick it can be implied that there can be property in 
men. " 3. " That it would be wrong for us to 

ADMIT that there CAN BE TROrERTY IX MEN." 

Such were the views of those who framed the 
Constitution. They intended to express their 
views in such language as to be understood. 'Will 
this House stand by them ? 

The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Burt] declared that he would leave us no room to 
escape this issue—'- no loophole ot which to get 
out;''' that we must say by our votes either that 
there is property in men under the Federal Con- 
stitution, or that there is iwt. I am most happy 
to meet the gentleman on that point, and am pre- 
pared to submit the question to those who framed 
that instrument, to Mr. Madison. His decision 
is left on record. The only question is : Have 
the Representatives of the people here the firm- 
ness and the independence to maintain the Con- 
stitution ? There stands the record of their in- 
tentions. '• He who runs may read " No man 
can fail to understand the intentions of those who 
framed our political compact. Those intentions 
constitute the very spirit of the Constitution, 
which we are sworn to support. The people of 
the free States are aware of the objects and inten- 
tions of those patriots. They know their rights 
under the Constitution ; they hold the indis- 
putable right to be free and entirely exempt 
from the corroding stain of slavery. So perfectly 
were these principles understood in the early 
days of the Republic, that after the war of the 



Revolution no man asked pay for his slaves that 
were taken from him or killed in the public 
service. In the year 1S30, the Register of 
the Treasury declared that no instance of the 
payment for slaves during the Revolution was to 
be found on record. No, sir ; Madison and Jef- 
ferson, and their cotemporaries, were then living. 
They well understood the principles on which 
the Union had been formed. They respected 
the rights of the fne as well as of the slave 
States, and no man then attempted to involve the 
people of the North in the support of slavery. I 
believe the first attempt to make this Government 
pay for .slaves was in 1S16. This was twenty- 
seven years after the adoption of the Constitution, 
and forty-two years after the declaration of Amer- 
ican independence. It is an important historical 
fact, that shows clearly the opinions then enter- 
tained on this subject. 

After the close of the late war with England, 
a bill was pending in this House, providing for 
the payment of property lost or destroyed during 
that war. When the section providing for the 
payment of horses, carts, &c., impressed into pub- 
lic service and destroyed, Mr. Maryant, from 
South Carolina, moved to amend the bill so as to 
embrace slaves. The motion was opposed by Mr. 
Yancy and Mr. "Robertson, and was negatived by 
a large majority. (See National Intelligencer, 
December 28, ISIG.) This was a motion so to 
amend this bill as to pay for slaves if killed in the 
public service, when they had been impressed. I 
have heard Northern members express the opinion, 
pending this bill, that we ought to pay for slaves, 
if lost, when they were impressed into the service. 
Sir, such was not the case thirty-five years since. 
Our predecessors then spurned the proposition. 
Where now is the feeling, the spirit, which ani- 
mated them 1 We have no record of the speeches, 
but every member will see that the case proposed 
was the strongest case that could be imagined. It 
was where a slave was taken against the will of 
the master, and pressed into the service, and killed 
by the enemy. Yet they rejected the proposition 
by a large majority. The claim before us is of 
incomparably less force. Here the master hired 
the slave, at a high price, to go with the troops 
as a guide, and of course took uffffn himself all 
risks. 

The next case was that &f D'Auterive. He 
had claims against the United ^States for wood and 
other necessaries furnished the army, and for the 
loss of tiafv? and the expense of nursing a slave 
who was wounded in the service of Government 
at New Orleans. This case is more interesting 
from the fact, that there was at that time an at- 
tempt, as on the present occasion, to break down 



that well-known principle in our Constitution, 
that " slaves are persons, and not proptrti/J' 

The Committee on Claims at that time (1828) 
was composed of four Northern and three South- 
ern men. At its head was an honorable Southern 
man; [Lewis Williams, of North Carolina,] who 
served his country longer in this body ths.nany 
other that ever sat in this hall. For more than a 
quarter of a century he was a distinguished mem- 
ber of this House. There are few, very few, now 
present, that had the pleasure of serving with 
him ; but his cotemporaries can attest to his great 
abilities and deserved influence. That committee 
reported in favor of allowing compensation for 
the articles furnished to the army, but said, ex- 
pressly, that •• slaves not hews: proper! ij, they could 
not allow the master any compensation for his loss." 
This was the unanimous report— Mr. Williams 
of North Carolina, IVIr. McCoy of Virginia, and 
Mr. Owen of Alabama, uniting in the report. 
Mr. Williams had been contemporaneous with 
Madison and Jefferson, and he did not hesitate to 
avow the doctrines of the Constitution, and to 
maintain them. Here is the record of his opinion 
and of the views of his associates. When the bill 
came up in Committee of the Whole^ certain 
Southern gentlemen suddenly became excited, 
worked themselves into a passion, threatened a 
dissolution of the Union, and all that sort of thing. 
In short, they manifested that spirit of dictation 
and intimidation which we have so often witnessed 
on more recent occasion?. They made a strenu- 
ous effort to reverse the decision of the Committee 
on Claims ; but, after some two weeks' discussion 
gave it up, laid the subject on the table, and there 
the matter ended. 

This discussion was thirty-nine years subse- 
quent to the adoption of the Constitution, and 
more than fifty from the Declaration of Independ- 
ence. The principle that slaves were pprsons, and 
not property, was reaffirmed, upon full discussion, 
without the light which we possess on the subject. 
The Madison Papers were not then published. 
The views of Gerry and Sherman and Madison, 
in the Convention, and the action of that body in 
relation to this matter, were unknown to them. 
Should we now reverse thatdecision, and overturn 
the practice, we shall sin against greater light 
than they possessed. 

The next and only remaining instance in which 
the question of appropriating the treasure of the 
nation to pay for slaves was in 15-13. "A bill for 
the relicfof the people of West Florida,"' intended 
to provide for the payment of slaves taken by the 
army of General Jackson from the inhabitants of 
that Territory, in 1*^ 11, came up for discussion. 
The slaves had been taken, against the consent of 



6 

their owners, by the military power of the nation- 
I think there were about ninety, taken from dif- 
ferent individuals. The proposition was distinct 
in its character. The object of the bill was to 
pay for human flesh. I myself opened the debate, 
and stated, as the principal grounds of my opposi- 
tion to it, that slaves were not regarded as proper- 
ty under the Federal Constitution. My venera- 
ble and lamented friend, now no more. (John 
Gluincy Adams.) sustained my positions. Several 
Southern gentlemen spoke in favor of the bill. 
The Journal is now before me, and shows the 
bill to have been rejected, by a vote of one hundred 
and thirteen to thirty-six. This was done by a WJiis 
Congress. Not one of that party from the free 
States voted for the bill. 

I have now given a history of our legislation on 
this subject. There was a bill passed this body, 
''■sub sihntio,'' on one of those days when there 
is, by the rules of the House, no discussion, by 
which payment was made for a slave. My friend 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Dickey] h^s stated the 
facts in regard to it. I knew that such a bill was 
pending, and so did Mr. Adams ; and we had mu- 
tually agreed to oppose its passage ; but it slipped 
through unnoticed, and, therefore, constitutes no 
precedent. 

In 1S4.J, a bill passed this body to pay over 
moneys obtained by the Government from Great 
Britain, and held in trust by us, to be paid to the 
owners of slaves lost on board the " Comet and 
Encomium." This bill also passed the Senate, 
and became a law. At the last session we passed 
two bills to pay over moneys held in trust for the 
same purpose. These cases were not to take the 
treasure of the people of the free States to pay for 
slaves, but to pay over money that did not belong 
to us, but which we held for the use of those who 
claimed it. But from the dawn of the Revolution 
to this day, being more than seventy years, this 
House has expressed but one opinion on this sub- 
ject. They have at all times refused to tax the people 
of the North to pay for the slaves of the South. We 
have never regarded them as property. But an 
attempt is now making to change the essential 
elements of our Government. Statesmen, now, in 
the high councils of the nation, deny that '• all 
vien are created equal ;" that « they are endorved by 
their Creator with the unalienable right to their lives 
and their liberties;^' or, that '• Governmenis are in- 
stituted amons: men to secure the enjoyment of those 
rights." It is now urged that this Government was 
instituted for the purpose of robbing men of those 
rights ; of disrobing a portion of our race of their 
humanity, and reducing them to the state of brutes, 
and making them the property of oth-rs. Will 
Northern members assist to commit tbi? outrage 
upon the honor of the nation and constitutional 



7 



rights of the Northern States ? Is there a mem- ' 
ber from the free States who will vote to tax his | 
constituents to pay for Southern slaTes 1 If so, \ 
let them place their names on record in favor of , 
this bill, and let that record descend to coming ! 
generations, as a lasting memento of the princi- 
ples which guide them. } 
I have now referred to the history of our legis- j 
lation on this subject. The action of our com- j 
mittees was well commented upon by my friend ' 
from New Hampshire, [Mr. Wilson.] I wish, 
however, to add a few words on this point. I am 
not aware that any committee of this House ever i 
reported in favor of paying for slaves, until the 
first session of the ^Ith. Congress — being more 
than sixty-five years from the formation of the 
Government. 

In 1830, my predecessor, the Hon. E. Whittle- 
sey, reported upon the case of Francis Larche. 
This was the case alluded to by the gentleman 
from South Carolina, [Mr. Burt.] I understood 
him to say that the slave of Larche was noi irn- 
'pressed. 

Mr. Burt. The gentleman is mistaken. The 
statement which I made was this : that no case 
could be adduced in which a refusal to pay for a 
slave had been made, on the ground that he is 
not property. The gentleman is totally mis- 
taken. 

Mr. GiDDi.N«.s. I certainly understand the gen- 
tleman now, and I refer particularly to the case 
of D'Auterive, which was rejected on this identi- 
cal point. The committee say, in express lan- 
guage, ih^i' '■'• slaves have never heen placed on the 
footing of 'propertyP And they rejected the claim 
distinctly on that point. 

But to return to the case of Larche. The Com- 
mittee on Claims of the Senate (vide Rep. H. R. 
401, 1st session 21st Congress) say, in distinct 
language, that "the cart, horse, and negro man 
Antoine, belonging to the petitioner, were im- 
pressed, and sent to the lines of the American 
army, on the 1st day of January, ISlf), where the 
negro num was killed hij a cannon hall from the Brit- 
ish latteriesP 

The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Burt] 
assures us that he was not impressed. I can hard- 
ly suppose that he was authorized thus distinctly 
to deny the accuracy of that report, in a matter 
of fact. However that may be, it is certain that 
the committee understood that the man was im- 
pressed. They therefore acted upon that hy- 
pothesis : and with that belief the committee 
unanimously reported against the bill. No strong- 
er case can be imagined. The horse, cart, and ne- 
gro, were impressed., as the committee reported and 
believed. The petitioner was paid for the prof- 
erfy— that is, the horse and cart — but the claim for 



the slave was rejected. Yet, sir, they had not the 
advantages of knowing the sentiments of the 
framers of the Constitution which we possess. 
They were unconscious that the members of the 
Convention declared, that ^'-they ought to becarefnl 
to give no sanction to slavery f^ that they should do 
nothing by which " it could ht Implied that slaves 
were property ;^^ ''that it was wrong to admit that 
there could he property in man." I repeo/t, that to 
the best of my knowledge, (and I have bestowed 
much labor upon the subject.) no report was made 
in favor of paying for slaves from the public 
Treasury during the first half century which this 
Government existed under the present Constitu- 
tion. 

If wrong on any of these points, I ask gentle- 
men to correct me here, before the country. Let 
them expose my errors in the presence of this 
House,' where I can meet them ; where, with truth 
on my side, 1 stand prepared to defend my posi- 
tions. Let gentlemen stand forth in this hall 
and meet my facts and argument like men, like 
statesmen, and not shrink away in silence, and then 
set their letter-writers to assail aie — to pour forth 
their miserable abuse upon my humble self. Why, 
sir, suppose they destroy vie., they will leave my 
doctrines, my principles, untouched. They will 
remain while eternity shall last. 

But to resume the history of this subject. In 
the 27th Congress, the claim of James Watson 
for slaves was committed to the Committee of 
Claims, of which I was myself chairman. The 
friends of the claim, by some means, learned that 
that committee had always reported against the 
payment for slaves. They therefore obtained the 
transfer of that case to the Committee on Indian 
Affairs, who reported a bill to pay for the slaves 
claimed by Watson. That report, made seven 
years since, was the first in favor of paying for 
slaves as property, so far as my knowledge ex 
tends, ever made to this body. During the same 
session, a report from the Committee on Territo 
ries was made of the "bill for the relief of the 
people of West Florida,-' to which I have already 
I alluded, and which was rejected by the House. 
I Mr. Burt. Will the gentleman allow me the 
I floor a moment? 

I Mr. GiDDiNG.s. With pleasure. 
j Mr. Burt. I stated in Committee the other 
I day^ in reply to the interrogatory of the gentle 
[ man from Ohio, that Mr. Whittlesey, in his re 
I port on Larche's case, quoted the report of the 
Senate. I stated further, that Mr. AVilliams, to 
whom the gentleman from Ohio alluded, made a 
I report in the Senate, on this case of Lirche, say 
j ing that there was no evidence that the slave had 
[ been impressed at all. I stated further, that I had 
I examined the Senate files in that case ; and there 



is no evidence there, except the depositions of one 
or two men, (in the absence of any order.) that he 
was impressed at all. 

Mr. GiDDi.NGS. Here is the historical record, 
■ike documentary proof, on which we are bound to 
«ct. I ask the gentleman from South Carolina 
if he intends to overthrow it by his sidebar testi- 
mony? 

Mr. BfKT. VvT'hatisit? 
Mr. GiDDi.NGS. That this man was impressed. 
Mr. Bt'KT. I do. sir. There is no evidence of 
the fact. 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. Then I leave the gentleman f o 
take issue with the history. The documentary 
evidence is, that this slave y^asimprtssed ; that he 
was taken to the American lines, and was there 
'• killed by a cannon shot from the enemy's batte- 
ries.'' 

At the period to which 1 was referring when 
interrupted, I had been placed at the head of the 
Committee on Claims, by the then Speaker of this 
House. ;Hon.John White, of Kentucky,] of whom, 
-though a slaveholder, I can never speak except 
with profound respect. There were at that time 
many claims for slaves before that committee. 
It was then our settled policy to make no re- 
ports on those cases, lest we should stir up agi- 
tation on this delicate question. 

In this Hall, before the House, I was interro- 
gated by a slaveholder [Mr. Wise, of Virginia] on 
this subject. I was asked distinctly whether our 
committee nould report in favor of paying for slaves ? 
I answered, that we would follow the established 
practice on that subject. He replied, that my 
answer was evasive,^ but that the established prac- 
tice was not to pay for slaves. It so happened, 
that on the 21st March, 1842, 1 introduced certain 
resolutions declaring the rights of the people of 
the free States to be exempt from the support of 
the slave trade. For this I was censured and 
driven from my seat. Another member was added 
to the Committee on Claims; and then, sir, dur- 
ing my absence, just eight days after I hft the com- 
7ni;tee, this case nas nrgedvponthe memhi'.rs, who were 
JnQSi of them inexf./ienced in their dvlies. and unac- 
quainted with the precedents. I hft this Hall on the 
'22d Marckj and on the 1st day of April folloiving 
a bill was reported by a slcveholding member of that 
committee, to pay for this man Lewis. This was the 
first case of the kind that ever received a favor- 
able report from that particular committee ; and 
that report was obtained in the manner just stated. 
It was in the sixty-seventh year of American 
independence, snd the fifty-third of our Consti- 
tution. This is the history of this subject, and 
of this bill. It was reported seven yeai's since by 
a Whig committee. We are yet to see whether 
'.his House can be induced to pass it. 



Sir. we have the power to overturn the practice 
of this body from its first formation ; we may 
overthrow its established and time-honored prin- 
ciples ; we may defeat the objects of those who 
framed the Constitution ; we may subvert the es- 
sential elements of that sacred compact which we 
are sworn to support ; we may attempt to change 
the law of our existence — to deface the work of 
God. and declare his image to be property ; we 
may do all this at the bidding of the slave power ; 
we may humble ourselves in the pxesecce of those 
who hold the rod of terror over us ; but there is a 
superior Power that will hold us to a strict ac- 
count of our stewardship. Sir, the eyes of the 
people are upon us ; they are watching our ac- 
tions. The concentrated rays of intelligence now 
brought to bear upon all our doings, render it im- 
possible for us to deceive them. No evasion, no 
subterfuge, will screen those who would render 
Northern freemen subsidiary to the support of 
Sovthern slavery. 

To this day there has been in this Hall suffi- 
cient independence and patriotism to reject all 
propositions of this humiliating character. As I 
have said, we are now driven to legislate by South- 
ern slaveholders, under the lash of the South. 

Mr. Br/RT. I hope the gentleman from Ohio 
will allow me this opportunity to disclaim utterly 
and indignantly any such imputation. 

Mr. GiDDiNGs. Withdraw it. then. 

Mr. Burt. I venture to appeal to this whole 
Committee, who heard my remarks. 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. I thought, when the gentleman 
said he would hold Northern gentlemen to this 
point, whether a slave was property — ^^that he 
wovld leave no loophole for us to esca^ie''' — I thought 
it looked somewhat like the language of intimida- 
tion ; it smacked somewhat of the plantation, of 
the crack of the whip. And I took it unkind in 
the gentleman from Connecticut, that, under such 
circumstances, he should attempt to stifle debate, 
to seal the lips of Northern men. 

This bill is pressed upon us at this particular 
time, when Southern men are holding Conven- 
tions, and manufacturing their usual mock thun- 
der of dissolving the Union, in consequence of 
our agitation. We hear it rolling along the 
heavens. It affords amusement to our school- 
boys, who crack their jokes and sing ditties in 
regard to it. 

Sir, when I reflect that I am now constrained 
to sit in this Hall to legislate upon the price of 
human flesh as property., I feel humbled. Before 
the nation, before Heaven, I protest against this 
degradation. By what rule shall I arrive at the 
1 value of this vian'? Fie is said to be very intelli- 
gent and learned, reading and writing four lan- 
guages. In this respect he Las, probably, few 



9 

equals in this Hall. I mean no offence by this 
comparison, either to gentlemen now present, or 
to the negro who is absent. I regard the moral 
qualities of a man as the proper criterion by 
•which to graduate my respect. In this light, I 
know not whether the comparison be unjust to 
him or to those who estimate Ids value at precisely 
a thousand dollars. I would be as willing to enter 
into an inquiry as^ to the value of the body of 
the honorable member reporting this bill, as I 
am to estimate the value of a man who, as a 
linguist, probably has not a dozen equals in this 
body. If we are to judge of him by the report of 
the committee, if placed in this body, he might 
have reflected honor upon our country and our 
race. The splendor of his genius might have 
soared far above the grovelling intellects now en- 
gaged in figuring up his value in dollars and 
cents. His name might have been placed in fu- 
ture history beside that of Vfirt, of Henry, of 
Burke, and of Sheridan ; or perhaps his philan- 
thropy might have placed him on the roll of 
fame with Adams and Wilberforce. And yet we 
are now sitting here to inquire as to the value of 
this immortal mind, to estimate its price in •' glit- 
tering dust." My soul shrinks from the impious 
sacrilege with loathing and disgust. But this 
ethereal, immortal intellect, \^as bound in the 
chains of bondage, shut out from that sphere of 
usefulness and of action in which God designed 
it to move ; and we are now asked to compensate 
this claimant for committing this wrong to man- 
kind, this crime against God. I am anxious to 
see how Northern members estimate their fellow 
men. What price do they put upon their con- 
stituents 1 Let their votes give the answer. 

On a former occasion, I cited the opinion of an 
eminent jurist (Judge McLean) on this subject. 
In the case of Groves vs. Slaughter and others, 
(1-5 Peters's Reports, 449,) this question came dis- 
tinctly before the Supreme Court of the United 
States. The Constitution of Mississippi had pro- 
hibited the introduction of slaves into that State 
after a certain day. Slaves were taken there 
and sold on a credit after the time allowed by the 
Constitution of that State. Suit was commenced 
on the note given in copsideration of the slaves. 
The defence set up was, that the contract was 
illegal and void under the Constitution of that 
State, which prohibited the sale therein of slaves 
from without the State. The reply to this was, 
that slaves were property, and therefore the State 
of Mississippi had no power to prohibit their in- 
troduction into the State, as the power to regu- 
late commerce between the States belonged only 
to Congress. In deciding the law, Judge McLean 
said: 
•• By the laws of certain States slaYCB are treated 



as property ; and the Constitution of Mississippi 
prohibits their being brought into that State by 
citizens of other States, for sale or as merchan- 
dise. Merchandise is a comprehensive term, and 
may include every article of traffic, whether for- 
eign or domestic, which is properly embraced by 
a commercial regulation. But if slaves are con- 
sidered in some of the States as merchandise, that 
cannot divest them of the leading and controlling 
quality of persons, by which they are designated 
in the Constitution. The character of the prop- 
erty is given them by the local law. This law is 
respected, and all rights under it are protected 
by the Federal authorities ; but the Constitution 
acts upon slaves as persons, and not as property.'' 

But one member of that Court dissented from 
these views. It may therefore be regarded as an 
authority, so far as the Judiciary-are concerned. 

If the doctrine contended for by the friends of 
this bill be correct, if slaves be property, slave \, 
markets may be opened in Boston, and Massachu- 
setts will have no power to prohibit there the 
revolting scenes which are witnessed in this city. 
If the doctrine contended for by Southern men 
be correct, no State can exclude slave markets 
from its territory, or consecrate its soil to free- 
dom. It well becomes Southern gentlemen to ex- 
amine this subject before they base themselves 
upon the principle that slaves are property. Let 
that be established, and Congress will have power 
to prohibit the internal slave trade at its pleasure. 

I now proceed to another branch of the case. 
With great propriety the gentleman from New 
Hampshire inquired, at what ti7Jie the liability of 
Government to pay for this slave commenced ? 
The question has not been answered, nor do I 
think it can be answered. The undertaking was 
hazardous in the highest degree. The troops 
were all killed but two or three, by the enemy, 
and those were supposed to be dead. This man 
alone escaped unhurt. This danger was foreseen, 
and the master put a price upon the services to 
compare with the risk. Did this contract bind 
the Government to pay for the master's loss, ad- 
mitting the slave to have been property ? Was it 
any part of the compact that the Government 
should insure the property? It strikes me that 
no lawyer would answer in the affirmative. The 
law of bailment is' surely understood by every 
tyro in the profession. The bailee for hire is 
bound to exercise the same degree of care over 
the property that careful men ordinarily take of 
their own property. If, then, the property be 
lost, the owner sustains such loss. Now, conced- 
ing this man to be property, the Government 
would not have been liable, had he run away,^ or 
been killed by accident, or died of sickness. Yet, 
sir, when property is lost or destroyed by the 
act of God or the common enemies of the country, 
no bailee is ever holden responsible— not even 



10 



common carriers, and that is the highest species 
of bailment. Had this officer, acting on his own 
responsibility, agreed to take this negro through 
the country for hire, (admitting the man to have 
been property, and governed by the same rules 
of law as though he had been a mule or an ass.) 
and he had been captured by the enemy, no law 
would have held such bailee liable. But, sir, an 
entirely different rule of law prevails where the 
owner of a chattel lets it to a bailee for wages 
Had this man been a mule or an ass, and the offi- 
cer had hired him of the owner for wages, to 
ride through that country, or to work in a team, 
or in any other manner, and he had been cap- 
tured by the enemy, the bailee would not have 
been liable, upon any rule of law or of justice ; 
nor would he have been liable if lost in any other 
manner, except by neglect of the bailee. 

The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Burt] 
said he would place this case upon strictly legal 
prviciphs. Sir, I meet the gentleman on that prop- 
osition. I, too, for the sake of the argument, am 
willing to submit it on principles of law : and I 
believe that no jurist, or even justice of the peace, 
would hesitate to reject the claim on those grounds. 
All must admit that the liability of the Govern- 
ment concerning this man ceased when he was 
captured by the enemy ; up to this point the Gov- 
ernment was not liable. I understood the author 
of this bill [Mr. Burt] to argue, however, that we 
became liable under the contract of bailment. 
That contract was ended when the man was cap- 
tured. The claimant then failed to perform his 
part of it. The stipulation on the part of the 
master was, that the negro should pilot the troops 
from Fort Brooke to Fort King, the place of their 
destination, at the rate of twenty-five dollars per 
month. He was captured when only half the 
distance was accomplished. Here the master 
ceased to perform his compact ; it was beyond his 
power to do so. The contract then ceased to ex- 
ist ; and from that time forth the claimant had no 
demand on us, either in equity or in law. 

I nov7 enter upon another view of this case. 
It is shown, by the testimony of General Jesup, 
that this man was supposed to have kept up an 
understanding with the enemy, from the time he 
united with Dade's command until the massacre 
of that unfortunate battalion: that while he was 
with the enemy, which was more than two years, 
he united in comriiittiii.j dtprtdaiions vpontlit frontier 
aetthmtnts ; in short, that he was one of the enemy. 
Our army was sent there to protect this claimant, 
and his wife and children and neighbors, against 
this very man, who, in company with others, 
murdered the people of Florida, and destroyed 
their property. This expenditure of blood and 
treasure by the United States was occasioned in 



part by this very negro, for whom the master now 
claims compensation. With his extraordinary 
intelligence, with a knowledge of the wrongs 
which he and his people had suffered at the hands 
of those who claimed them as property, he must 
have thirsted for vengeance. He could have felt 
no attachment, no respect, for a people at whose 
hands he had received nothing but abuse and 
degradation. It was natural that he should have 
sought revenge ; and it was natural that his mas- 
ter should become his victim, if within his power. 
But our army was sent there to protect the people 
against their slaves who were with the Indians, 
and their effective allies. It was under these cir- 
cumstances that Lewis was captured, with other 
enemies. General Jesup says that he would have 
tried and hanged him, if he could have found 
time. This, under martial law, he might un- 
doubtedly have done. And the gentleman who re- 
ported this bill admitted that in such case this claim 
would never have been presented. Suppose he 
had been slain in battle : I think we should never 
have heard of this claim. But why had General 
Jesup a rJo-Z^r to hang him? Because he was an 
enemy, dangerous to the 2'eopie and to the Govern- 
ment. But who will for a moment hesitate to say 
that he had the same power, yea, greater power, 
to send him out of the neighborhood, than he had 
to slay him in battle, or to hang him. Humanity 
surely would dictate that he should be sent out of 
the neighborhood, rather than his life should be 
sacrificed. Has the claimant's loss been greater 
than it would have been had the negro been slain 
or hanged ? Not at all. He had been taken in 
arms, had committed depredations upon the peo- 
ple ; he had occasioned much loss of blood and 
treasure to the nation. Could General Jesup have 
left him in Florida, consistently with his duty ? 
I think not. 

Here another important question arises. Had 
the claimant any right to keep an enemy so dan- 
gerous within any civilized community ? Is there 
a member of this body who will rise in his place 
and assert that any master possesses the right to 
retain such a foe on his plantation ? Has any 
man the right to keep a rabid dog, or other ani- 
mal, and suffer him to go at large in the commu- 
nity ? 1 am now arguing the legal (luestion. I 
am considering this man as property, the same as 
though he were an ass or a mule. And I lay it 
down as clear and indisputable law. that, had 
such mule or ass killed the people, and destroyed 
their property, as this man had done, any member 
of the community might either have shot him, or 
chased him out of the neighborhood with impu- 
nity. 

I therefore meet the gentleman who reported 
this bill on every point involved in this case, le- 



11 



gal, equitable, or constitutional, and I can find no 
merits in it. 

But, sir, as I am for the moment eng^iged in a 
lei^al examination of the case, I desire to follow it 
a little farther. This man was guilty of treason 
against the United States, or he was an enemy to 
our Government. I think it doubtful whether 
slaves can commit treason, as they owe no allegi- 
ance to our Government. But if he was not a 
traitor, he was surely an enemy to the country. 
Now, sir, whether traitor or enemy, and the mas- 
ter, knowing the fact, "had harbored him," "ad- 
hered to him," or " given him aid and comfort," 
would not the master have been guilty of the 
crime of misprision of treason against the United 
States, and punishable under our laws? Of this 
I think there is no doubt. And yet we are called 
upon to pay him a thousand dollars for taking 
away a man thus dangerous to himself, who, if he 
had remained with him, would probably have 
subjected him to the gallows. Let gentlemen re- 
flect and vote as men, as intelligent statesmen. 

Another question arises in this case, which, to 
me, is equally fatal to the claim. A state of war 
existed. General Jesup was the commanding 
oiBcer in Florida. He was the agent of the Gov- 
ernment ; and whatever the Government might 
do to insure the safety of the people, their agent 
for the time being could accomplish under the 
martial law. By the term " martial law," I mean 
the war poner^ which is the most dangerous, the 
most indefinite, the most unlimited, exercised 
among nations. I do not refer to the rules and 
articles of war, but to that vague, indefinite, un- 
■definable power which knows no limits. It is 
that power which, in time of war, may do any- 
thing in the power of man to accomplish ; may 
command any sacrifice of the people, or of any 
portion of them, in order to secure the safety of 
the Government, and of the subjects generally. 
It is that power which authorizes 'the military 
commander, in short, to do whatever he deems 
necessary for the security of the public ; by which, 
suspected men were arrested and imprisoned in 
Connecticut and New York during the Revolu- 
tion ; by which, others were ordered to leave the 
country ; and by which, others were shot down, 
their dwellings burned, and their estates confis- 
cated. It is the power exercised in South Caro- 
lina, during the Revolution, by Sumter, and by 
Marion, and their compatriots. It was by virtue 
cf this power that Jackson, at New Orleans, sus- 
pended the wi'it of habeas corpus — adjourned the 
Legislature of Louisiana — ordered old men and 
boys, not liable to do military duty by law, on to 
the lines, to defend the city — sent all foreigners 
out of the cUy^ as he regarded them dangerous, as 
ihis man was supposed to be — suffered no com- 



munication between the city and country — order- 
ed a portion of the slaves also into service, and 
sent the others back into the interior. Many of 
those slaves were killed, but we have at all t.imes 
refused to pay for them. But does any one deny 
these unlimited powers 1 Not at all. If General 
Jackson had the right to send freemen and slaves 
away from the scene of danger, had not General 
Jesup the same power? Most assuredly he had. 
But the best illustration of this tremendous power 
is said to have occurred at Fort Erie, at the time 
the British attacked it in 1814. A lieutenant 
commanded a picket guard at the west of the fort, 
perhaps a mile distant. A beautiful plain ex- 
tends in that direction some half or three-fourths 
of a mile, bounded by a dense forest. He was 
posted in this forest. As the British column ad- 
vanced, the brave lieutenant, with his little band, 
retreated in front of them, keeping up his fire in 
gallant style, in order to retard their progress, 
and give notice to our men in the fort, and time 
for them to prepare to receive the enemy. An 
ofiicer who had command of a heavy park of ar- 
tillery on that wing of the fort, as the British 
column emerged from the forest, and he saw its 
force, opened a tremendous fire upon it. Our 
little guard and their brave commander were di- 
rectly between the fort and the advancing col- 
umn of the British army. They of course fell 
beneath the same fire that cut down the hostile 
column. As the story is related. General Brown 
was informed of the fact, and sent peremptory 
orders to the officer to cease his fire. To this 
order he paid no attention, but kept up such a 
shower of grape and canister, that the British 
column was broken and scattered before they 
reached the fort, so that not a man scaled its 
walls. But the whole of our picket guard, with 
their commander, were sacrificed ; not a man sur- 
vived. For this conduct the officer was arrested, 
and, on trial, showed conclusively that the sacri- 
fice of our own guard of thirty men was uecessanj 
to save the fort and those in it. They, sir, were 
freemen. Their lives were surrendered for the 
safety of the army. These five Southern gentle- 
men who reported this bill now insist that the 
widows and orphan children of those men shall 
contribute a portion of their substance to pay for 
a Southern slave, who, for the safety of his own 
master as well as others, was sent out of the 
neighborhood. If there be a Northern man in 
this body willing to lend his vote to consummate 
such an insult to the honor of the free State?, 
let him stand forth and avow it. Were it not 
chilling to the feelings of humanity, I would give 
another illustration of this indefinite and unlim- 
ited power. I refer to the execution cf those lads 
on board the sloop of war Somers, a few years 



12 



since, when several midshipmen and apprentices | 
were hanged by order of a lieutenant, •without ; 
trial, in order to secure the safety of the ship and | 
crew. Shall we now tax the fathers and brothers 
of those young men to pay for this slave / 

But. sir, to come more immediately to the pre- 
cise case before us, 1 refer gentlemen to the South- 
ampton riots in 1832. The newspapers of that 
day informed us that slaves, and indeed colored ; 
freemen, were shot down in the streets, others 
sent to prison, and others sent out of the neigh- I 
borhood. Shall Northern men be taxed .to pay 
for them? Certainly, if you pass this bill, we 
must expect to open the Treasury to the slave- ; 
holders in all these and in ten thousand other i 
cases. By virtue of this same power exercised at | 
Southampton, General Jesup, in order to secure 
the safety of the people of Florida, sent this man 
Lewis with the Indians west of the Mississippi : j 
and now the master, instead of paying the ex- 
pense of arresting this man — instead of refund- 
ing to this Government and to the people of Flor- j 
ida the losses he has occasioned by bringing this 
slave among them — instead of paying for the 
property this man destroyed — he comes here and 
demands that we should pay him a thousand dol- 
lars for preventing Lewis from kiUing more people i 
and destroying more property. 

I have now stated my own views in regard to 
the powers of General Jesup to send this man 
out of the neighborhood. If he possessed these 
powers to deal with him as with any other ene- 
my, no man will urge that we are in law or jus- 
tice bound to pay for him. Admitting, however, 
for the sake of the argument, that General Jesup 
had no right to deal with him as an enemy, but 
that he was bound, under the order of the War ! 
Department, to deliver him over as a slave ; that | 
he disobeyed this order, and sent him West upon 
his own responsibility, and in violation of his 
duty : in such case, I ask, is there a member on 
this tioor who for a moment would suppose the 
People bound to pay for a slave taken by Gene- 
ral Jesup, in violation of his duty and of positive 
orders from the War Department? 

Every member must be aware that the rules 
which control a public agent are the same as 
those which govern in private life. Suppose I 
employ a man to act as my agent. While he con- 
fines himself to the business on which he is au- 
thorized to act, I am bound in law and in justice 
by his contract. Suppose I employ my friend on 
m^' right to go and purchase a horse for me : he 
makes a contract for the horse in my name : I am 
bound by it. and must perform it. But suppose 
he purchase a farm in my name ; no man would 
suppose me obligated to take the farm. 

Military officers are the agents of Government, 



to do all things pertaining to their office, and 
which come within the line of their duties. Gen. 
Jesup was an agent to send out of Florida all 
enemies of the country ; but he was not our agent 
to send the friends of Government west of the 
Mississippi. If he has done so, the act is his, 
not ours. It was unauthorized, and he alone is 
liable. Now, I understand the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Burt] to urge that he was 
an enemy, and dangerous to the country. I ad- 
mit the fact, and say that he should be treated as 
an enem}'. But if he were not an enemy, then 
there is no claim on the Government. 

But the committee are not content with urging 
that he was an enemy to the country, and danger- 
ous : they suddenly change the argument, and say 
that he was taken for public use. An enenui to the 
nation is taken for public use! Well, sir, the argu- 
ment is ingenious. It never found a place in the 
mind of Grotius or Puffendorf, or of any writer 
upon the law of nations or the rights of govern- 
ment. But the point was adopted by the argu- 
ment of the gentleman from South Carolina, and 
perhaps I ought to notice it. For ivlict use was 
he taken ? To what use was he applied ? The 
gentleman admits the right to shoot or to hang 
him. Would not that have been as much a '• tak- 
ing for public use "' as it was to banish him ? The 
use of sending him out of the country was the 
preservation of the lives and property of the peo- 
ple. That would have been equally attained by 
shooting or hanging the negro. But the reply to 
this is, that he was property. Well. I repeat, sup- 
pose he had been a rabid dog or a vicious mule, 
killing people and destroying their property, and 
General Jesup had shot or chased him out of the 
country, to prevent him from killing his master 
or others, would the Government have been lia- 
ble ? I will not argue the point further. 

Again : it is said that, by the act of hiring, we 
admitted the slave to be property, and that the 
Government is now estopped from denying that 
fact. We are bound to treat all arguments on 
this floor with respect. But to suppose that this 
obscure lieutenant, who, perhaps, never read a 
commentary on the Constitution, and who, I dare 
say, never dreamed that he was aifecting. or doing 
anything to affect, our rights or our duties : I say, 
to suppose that his acts would tsiop Congress 
from maintaining the Constitution, or that such 
acts would have any weight whatever with this 
body, is a proposition which I will not detain the 
House to examine. He was our agent for the 
purposes of doing his military duty ; but we never 
authorized him to legislate for us, or to give con- 
struction to our constitutional rights. Why, sir. 
I may hire out my son or apprentice or my hired 
servant ; but would that be an admission that they 



i; 



were my property"? Or suppose I agree that the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Burt] shall 
attend the Speaker to a given place : does that im- 
ply that I hold him as property ? No, sir ; the 
only fact implied is, that I have a right to receive 
the wages when the labor or duty is performed, 
according to my contract. In this case, the claim- 
ant agreed that Lewis should accompany the 
troops, and the officer agreed to pay the master 
twenty-five dollars per month. The claimant 
might have made the same arrangement in regard 
to any freeman as he did in regard to Lewis ; and 
when the labor was performed, he would have the 
same right to the money. But, in such case, would 
the Government be obligated to pay him for the 
body of such freeman? No doubt the obliga- 
tions would rest upon the hirer that now rest on 
the Government, and no more. 

But the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Burt] saysrthat the act of 1815, levying direct 
taxes, recognises slaves as property. That law 
provides, '' that such tax shall constitute a lien 
upon the real estate, and upon all slaves of indi- 
viduals upon whom said taxes shall be assessed." 
My presumption is, that this bill was drawn by 
some Southern man, who did not reflect that slaves 
were less property under the Federal Constitu- 
tion than they were under the laws of the slave 
States. The gentleman does not pretend that, at 
the passage of that law. the question whether 
slaves were persons or property, was raised, or 
discussed, or thought of. I need not say that a 
bill passed sub sUentio constitutes no precedent. 
In our courts of justice, the judge- takes no notice of 
questions not made by the parties, nor do the 
proceedings of a court form any authority on 
points not raised nor discussed by counsel, nor 
examined by the court. 

The case of Depeyster, to which I referred, was 
a stronger case than that of the law of 1815. My 
friend from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Dickey,] as well 
as myself, stated that that case passed when no 
one knew it. I knew that my lamented friend 
[Mr. Adams] and myself both intended to oppose 
its passage, and we were both watching it; but it 
got through when we were unconscious of it. Does 
any man— I will not say lawyer— suppose that its 
passage constitutes any precedent showing that 
slaves are property ? Yet this law of 1815, so far 
as we know, received no more attention (or at 
least that part of it relating to slaves) than did 
the act for the relief of Depeyster. It can there- 
fore constitute no precedent. 

The force of a precedent consists in the respect 
which we pay to the judgment of a former Con- 
gress. It is therefore necessary, to give a prece- 
dent any force whatever, that i\Q judgment of the 
tribunal should have been exercised upon the 



question, whether it be a judicial or legislative 
precedent. Thus, in each case that I have cited 
as precedents, either in this House or in commit- 
tees the questions now under consideration were 
discussed, and deliberation had, and a judgment 
given upon the point before us. Now, sir, let me 
say. with all due respect to Southern gentlemen, 
that I challenge them to produce an instance in 
which this House, or the Supreme Court of the 
United States, or any respectable court of any 
free State, has decided slaves to be property under 
the Federal Constitution, in any case where that 
question has been raised, discussed, or examined. 
I desire to see gentlemen come to a definite issue 
on this subject. I wish to meet them fairly and 
distinctly. They must admit that the framers of 
the Constitution intended to exclude from that 
instrument the idea that there could be property 
in man. To that point I intend to hold them. 
And I call upon them to meet the record of Mr. 
Madison, to which I have referred. Let them 
deny that record, or carry out the intentions of 
the framers of that instrument. 

The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Burt] 
says he '• should like to know what was contem- 
plated by that clause in the Constitution which 
stipulates for the surrender of fugitive slaves, 
unless it be that their owners hold property in 
them V I answer, that clause means just what it 
savs. It gives to the holder of slaves the right to 
pursue and recapture them in a free State, pre- 
cisely as it gives me the right to pursue and re- 
take my apprentice or my son in any State to 
which he may escape. It no more admits the 
slave to be property, than it admits the apprentice 
or the minor to be property. I am tired of hear- 
ing this clause of the Constitution quoted to prove 
almost every doctrine advanced by Southern men. 
Its provisions are of the most plain and obvious 
character. It merely provides for the recapture 
and return of slaves, and nothing more. 

But my hour has nearly expired. My constit- 
uents hold slavery to be a crime of the deepest 
dye. The robbing a man of his money or prop- 
erty, or the seizing of his ship upon the high seas, 
we regard as grievous offences, which should ex- 
clude the perpetrator from human associations for 
the time being. But we look upon those crimes as 
of small importance, when compared with that of 
robbing a man of his labor, his liberty, his social, 
his intellectual enjoyments; to disrobe him of 
his humanity, to degrade and brutalize him. On 
this account we protest solemnly against being in- 
volved in the wickedness and in the crimes of that 
institittion. To-day we are asked to pay our 
money for the liberty of our fellow-man. We hold 
that he was endowed with that liberty by his Cre- 
ator; that it is impious, and in the highest degree 



14 



criminal, for a man. or for a Government, to rob 
any portion of our race of their God-given riglits. 
As the representative of a Christian and a moral 
constituency, I deny the right of Congress to in- 
volve them or me iu the support of such crimes. 
By our compact of Union, no such power is dele- 
gated to Congress. By the passage of this bill, 
we shall become slave dealers ourselves — traders 
in humanity. The people of our State shrink 
from the foul contagion. With Mr. Gerry, we 
hold that " 7ve have nothbigto do with slavery inthe 
States, but we will be careful not to give it any sanc- 
tion ;^^ with Mr. Madison, we hold that '-ii would 
he wrong to admit that there can he property in man ;'" 
and with the signers of the Declaration of Amer- 
ican Independence, we hold that it is a '• self- 
evident truth, that all men are created equal.'' We 
believe our rights to enjoy these doctrines unmo- 
lested by this Government are as clear and indis- 
putable as are the rights of the slave States to deny 
them in theory and in practice. We claim no su- 
periority of privileges under the compact. We 
admit them, under the Constitution, to enjoy their 
slavery unmolested by Congress or by the free 
States. Its blessings and its curses, its horrors 
and its disgrace, are theirs. We neither claim 
the one. nor will we share in the other. We will 
have no participation in its guilt. '• It is the ob- 
ject of our perfect hate." Southern'gentlemen 
may continue to misrepresent us, by saying that 
we seek to interfere with that institution in the 
States : but. thank God, we have at last obtained 
access to the public ear. The people of the free 
States now understand that all our efforts, politi- 
cally, are based upon the constitutional right of 
being exempt from its support. For years I have 
made it a practice, when I have spoken in this 
Hall, to guard against misrepresentation, by avow- 
ing my doctrines. I am aware of the efforts now 
making bv Northern presses, letter-writers from 
this city, and editors who pander to the spirit of 
servility, to misrepresent my views, and assail my 
motives. Sir, let me say to those men, before 
Heaven, If thej' will come up to the work, unite 
their intiuence, and separate this Government 
from the support of slavery and the slave trade, 
and leave that institution where the Constitution 
placed it — with the States in which it exists — 
with gratitude to God, and with love and good 



will to all my fellow-men. I will retire from these 
halls to the obscurity of private life. 

Sir, I may, on the present occasion, disabuse my- 
self of the imputation that I wish to embarrass 
the friends of the incoming Administration. Those 
who have done me the honor to observe my course 
in this Hall for the last ten years, must do me the 
justice to say, that my efforts here have been 
against existing evils. I desire to see every mem- 
ber of every party lend his influence to support 
the Constitution of my country and the rights of 
humanity. Sir, I war upon no party. I wish to 
see the people of the free States purified from the 
support, the crimes, the contagion of slavery. I 
would oppose any member or any party who seeks 
to uphold the slave trade or slavery by Congres- 
sional laws, or lends nis influence to continue 
within this District, or on the high seas, a com- 
merce in human flesh. I know that the sympa- 
thies, the consciences, and the judgment of the 
people are with me. Recent events have demon- 
strated the power of truth. Its omnipotence is ir- 
resistible. It is rolling onward. No political pal- 
tering, no party evasions, no deception?, no dodg- 
ing of responsibility, will satisfy the people. No ; 
gentlemen must come up to the work ; they must 
take their position upon the line of the Constitu- 
tion, and maintain the rights of the free as well as 
of the .'lave States, or they will be overwhelmed 
by the indignation of a free and virtuous people. 
Gen. Taylor and his friends will have an oppor- 
tunity of gaining immortal honors, and of de- 
serving and receiving the gratitude of the Ameri- 
can people. Let them at once abolish slavery and 
the slave trade in this District, and upon the high 
seas ; let this Government cease to oppress and de- 
grade our race ; let us cease to legislate for slavery; 
let the powers and influence of Government be ex- 
erted to promote human liberty, to elevate man- 
kind in his moral and physical being ; and the 
honors of men, and the blessings of Heaven, and 
the gr;ititude of this and of coming generations, 
shall be theirs. But if their influence be exerted 
to maintain this commerce in human flesh now 
carried on this District, and upon the high seas — 
to involve the people of the North in these tran- 
scendent crimes — then the opposition of good men, 
the curse of Heaven, and the execrations of pos- 
terity, will be their reward ! 



